cityneighbor

How many of these families are still homeless because of the tornado, and how many are there because Springfield's Code Enforcement "Task force" has thrown them out of houses they could be in ?

Hundreds of houses are vacant in Springfield because (almost) all the CDBG funds are allocated to "Code Enforcement" and demolition of houses, most of which could easily be repaired.

Obviously certain people are 'Coining it' at the expense of the State, and a lot of poor people are being used to facilitate that coining. They are certainly not obtaining good housing for families in these motels. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall would probably call this "Dishonest graft", because people are making money off doing things that shouldn't be done.

People who can see this should get together and force the State and so-called "Helpers" to help these people get into those vacant houses, where they could be living decent lives. Probably all of them could be fixed and occupied for less than $3,000 a month. What is happening now is nothing less than an abomination.

The problem in this forum is that everybody is reacting to racial stereotypes and taling about what happened when they were young in 1957 or 1965.

Our economy has changed. There are not the same kinds of jobs available that there were in 1965 or 1975. A lot of those jobs have been shipped off shore, by both the types of takeover firms that Romney headed and by the politicians and Wall Street types that support both Romney and Obama.

If we want our young people, White, black, or brown, to be interested in taking a job, we have to make it worth their while. This does not need to mean high pay, but it should not mean that they or their families lose their health care, housing, or other support because they are on a payroll.

The Democrats stopped "Workfare" in the 1990s, but not we have a situation where people get paid, but not well, and get benefits, to sit at home or be homeless and "Consume services". Meanwhile if they want anything a little more, like to eat for the whole month, they have to go into the "underground economy".

This is creating a kind of Society that we cannot sustain and which cannot compete for market share with other communities in the global market. We need to wake up and change this before it is too late, and blaming young people from other countries because they are not impacted by the same disincentives as our young people will not help this take place.

It is not fair to judge Sen. Brown by his most misguided supporters. He should be judged on his own merits, based on his actions. A number of bills would not have passed for the President if not for Sen. Brown's support. The if the so-called Liberals in this State were smart, they would be supporting one the most compatible Republicans, and showing others in the party that a willingness to cross the aisle on occasion does not cost candidates the election.

We should be supporting good candidates in both parties, not working to isolate ourselves.

The City Council should immediately adopt an ordinance, and a Home Rule petition to eliminate any conflicts with State laws, providing that no candidate for any position, including Superintendent of Schools, can be considered unless it can be proven legally that no qualified candidates exist who reside in the City.

We have allowed the clique that runs Springfield politics to impose their low self esteem issues on us since the 1960s. It has not produced good government, or high quality services for Springfield.

It has instead disempowered and disenfranchised Springfield residents while providing for a revolving door program for self-serving outsiders.

How can we credibly assert that we need an outsider to sell people on rebuilding Springfield, or send their children to attend school in the City?

We cannot and we need to stop fooling ourselves and letting ourselves be fooled.

The present system of giving hiring preference to suburbanites and outsiders does not encourage hiring the best people, it encourage hiring people to "Do not know the territory" and are therefore unlikely to succeed in working in Springfield. This is why we have many of the problems we have, despite spending more than enough money to solve some of the problems.

We need to stop having low self esteem and start taling care of our own people. Other people do; what's wrong with us?

Except that the exploitation of Springfield students by suburbanites, people too good to live in the City, pulling big salaries out of Springfield schools has gooten so much notice that it should give rise to a home rule petition to exempt Springfield from the ridiculous State law that Linda Melconian and Candy Lopes saddled us with.

To Mr_Miagi: Sir, Thank you for being concerned and participating, but you should examine your arguments and review the several points which do not follow logically.

Of course all competent scientific institutions reject "Creationism", because it is a belief based on faith; It is not science. Anyone who tells you differently is pulling your leg, and you should be sure to have a god grip on your wallet when they are around. It is no more science than belief in the Tooth Fairy. Science as a discipline requires initial doubt and confirmation of provisional theories based on evidence. Both evolution and 'human-caused' climate change are such theories, best apparent answers to the question of what is going on. Creationism is not a comparable theory. There is no more evidence for God creating the world in seven days than there is for the Tooth Fairy rewarding you for putting your tooth under the pillow at night. Comparing these ideas is not useful, and you are not persuading anyone, nor actually working to combat the increasing governmental coercion you appear to be actually concerned about.

If you are really concerned about people potentially using concern about climate change to justify governmental coercion, perhaps you should focus not on the idea that human actions may have consequences, which is obviously true (As in what goes up must come down - We all know that this is true), but instead on the high level of imprecision in climate science, which is illustrated even in the wide ranges of the predictions in the report, not to mention the high level of mistakes in weather reports. If people cannot tell if impacts are 11" or 79", how can they make recommend specific policies?

Another area you may wish to look at is people and firms using climate change to sell "Green" technology and write mandates for their services and products into laws and regulations. Is this a conflict of interest? Are the consequences of using these technologies really known?

Working on these areas would allow you to have an impact on the "Sinister Plan" you are decrying.

To Mr_Miagi: Sir, Thank you for being concerned and participating, but you should examine your arguments and review the several points which do not follow logically.

Of course all competent scientific institutions reject "Creationism", because it is a belief based on faith; It is not science. Anyone who tells you differently is pulling your leg, and you should be sure to have a god grip on your wallet when they are around. It is no more science than belief in the Tooth Fairy. Science as a discipline requires initial doubt and confirmation of provisional theories based on evidence. Both evolution and 'human-caused' climate change are such theories, best apparent answers to the question of what is going on. Creationism is not a comparable theory. There is no more evidence for God creating the world in seven days than there is for the Tooth Fairy rewarding you for putting your tooth under the pillow at night. Comparing these ideas is not useful, and you are not persuading anyone, nor actually working to combat the increasing governmental coercion you appear to be actually concerned about.

If you are really concerned about people potentially using concern about climate change to justify governmental coercion, perhaps you should focus not on the idea that human actions may have consequences, which is obviously true (As in what goes up must come down - We all know that this is true), but instead on the high level of imprecision in climate science, which is illustrated even in the wide ranges of the predictions in the report, not to mention the high level of mistakes in weather reports. If people cannot tell if impacts are 11" or 79", how can they make recommend specific policies?

Another area you may wish to look at is people and firms using climate change to sell "Green" technology and write mandates for their services and products into laws and regulations. Is this a conflict of interest? Are the consequences of using these technologies really known?

Working on these areas would allow you to have an impact on the "Sinister Plan" you are decrying.

It is unfortunate that we always seem to be knocking buildings down when there is not a politically-connected developer in the wings like on Longhill Street.

How much tax revenue will be lost over the coming years because the City planning, police, and housing people cannot manage a neighborhood so that it remains desirable to families affluent enough to maintain it?

There has to be a better way, but, as another contributor pointed out, the whole street has the same problem. Either a plan should be developed to revive it, or it should all be cleared so that Leyfred Terrace and the other street nearby can be revived.

The 'Anti-Western Mass' snob factor may be "Shameful", I can agree with. "Unexpected", however, is stretching. They act like anyone outside the Boston media market exists, or that we are too busy roping cattle to have valid interests.

Many people making comments seem to be confused as to what the issues are. Congressman John Olver is not the issue. He may continue to be elected for many terms, just as Silvio Conte was, but that is not the issue. The real issue is whether Western Mass will lose representation and be even more overshadowed by Boston.

As I see it Springfield, Holyoke, and the industrial areas south of the Holyoke Range, AND the Worcester Area, both are 'Communities of Interest' separate from the Berkshires and college towns of Hampshire County. This is more important than keeping five or more Congressional Districts that run out of Metro Boston like a 'Pie', apparently for the purpose of avoiding a 'majority-minority' district in Boston.

I attended the hearing last week in Worcester, and the point most people were making was that there should be three seats west of I-495.

People in Western Mass should stop worrying about John Olver's personality or record, and start seeing that if we don't work together and back up the people in Worcester, we may end up with 1/2 of our present representation, with a Congressional Office trying to balance dealing with us in Springfield against dealing with constituents in affluent Hampshire County towns. That is a choice we should not have to deal with.

Many people are starting to get involved in this issue. Many more should. If we lose representation due to lack of effort on our part, we may never get it back

145 State Street was built as the "Insurance Building" in about 1916, and then was renovated in the 1970s into the "Civic Tower" and went to near full occupancy in that form for a number of years. I am not sure the renovation as the "Epiphany Tower" was ever completed and made operational.

To the writer worried about 31 Elm St., and skeptical of the value of chain hotels, it should be conveyed that the chains have their place in the industry, and Springfield needs to have them downtown. This is a positive development.

At the same time the City managers who sabotaged the renovation of the Court Square Hotel (31 Elm Street) as a hotel early in the decade should be questioned as to the wisdom of that move. How much tax revenue has the City lost now? How much damage has been done to the building by neglect at City hands? People in the City really need to take control and get that job done right.

And the same has to be said about the South End. That area could still be a fine, peaceful community if City housing managers had not decided to promote conversion of the older apartment buildings into subsidized housing for families in the 1980s. We need real management from our well-paid community development people, not the spectacle of people on our payroll licking the boots of outside developers making the City worse with more subsidized housing while finger-pointing at the Springfield people victimized by their wanton and irresponsible behavior.

What I am saying is that the problems downtown, at 31 Elm Street, and in the South End, and elsewhere in the City, are not inevitable or irreversible, but will continue to get worse until people take control of the planning process away from those whose only interest appears to be exploiting every Federal program while avoiding the actual work of planning and developing our communities.

Very true. This is drunken sailor spending, at the same time we are starving many aspects of State spending. Why is school constructions supposed to be good regardless of its educational benefits?West Springfield High School is a fine facility that does not need replacement. Forest Park Middle School needs outside recreational space, and maintenance. $39 million is 'Over the top' excessive for the projected project. The obvious conclusion is that this is about Boston pols taking care of their architect, contractor, and construction union friends by providing another 'fix' for the riders on the gravy train.

How about some support for the economy in struggling communities that Dr. Scavron says need jobs?

It is certainly regrettable, but it would be useful if the Republican could find out what the nature of the dispute was, underneath the non-payment issue, so that readers would understand if this is a case of a long-time local business being mistreated by corporate giants, or something else. As it is it remains a mystery. It was very good that the reporter included coverage of the Lanier's support of the Springfield community, for which they do deserve great credit.

In the past 30 years the 'educated yuppies' have sold the working class and the country out. They are responsible for both the exporting of jobs out of the country, for creating the consumer debt bubble to cover it up that created the financial crisis, and for all the expensive government fix-it programs that don't work but pay big money to the yuppies.

The unions may not be blameless heroes of wisdom, but our educated yuppies have truly 'mucked it up' and this idea of paying the mayor a higher salary looks like another one of their ideas.